Ask a Gnostic Anything

[Lucretius]

No, its here, mystical revelation of the living God. It would be opposed to awareness of evil which exists in man’s attachment to the world through the senses, the intellect, and the spirit. Its seeing through the spiritual eye not a push of head work rooted in logic.

St. John of the Cross had some problems with St. Thomas because he thought Aquinas went too far with reason, trying to use reason to describe God Who can only be understood through Grace.

What I’m saying is that if a Dominican monk has an experience where he thinks that the universe is equally eternal with God, the Church (a objective standard) can verify his experience as false. St. Paul teaches that Satan can appear as an Angel of Light. The Church is simply the measure of whether or not a private experience is from God or the Adversary. Hinduism, on the other hand, does not have such a concept. Gnosticism is sort of in the middle, I think.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Do a bit of research on Valentinian Gnosticism and Carl Jung and you will see that I am not alone in my belief. I am not just pulling this stuff out of thin air.

Numbers are of no consequence to Truth. There are millions of Buddhists and Hindus, but that doesn’t lend any credibility to their beliefs. Heck, there are thousands of people who genuinely believe that the holocaust didn’t happen. I’m pretty sure we’d all agree that they’re all nutters.

Gnosticism is based on personal, intuitive revelation. But that does not mean that it is not fruitful to have my beliefs backed up by some school of thought-it just means that I am not bound by any sort of dogma.

i.e. It is wholly and completely subjective, with no basis for validation or refutation. It’s simply whatever sounds good for you, or whatever you “feel” is true. Do you not understand why this is a terrible basis for a belief structure?

Alot of people on this forum have disagreed with me-but none have gone so far as to call my ideology a fantasy. Perhaps it is you that is the one in the fantasy world.

I am not as tactful as some of my compatriots, and I acknowledge that. However, that does not have any affect on my arguments, none of which you’ve actually refuted. You’ve just dodged the issue… just like with this post. You didn’t refute anything I said, only restated your definition of Gnosticism and attacked my choice in wording. You can repeat yourself as many times as you want, it doesn’t make your claims any more rational or valid.

I am not trying to be mean, but I’d really like to hear your rebuttal, not just another restatement of what you think. If you don’t rebut my arguments, we can’t advance in the discussion.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

This is probably why modern science developed in the Christian (gasp! ) West, as opposed to the Asian east. Because of the way the East views the world, they didn’t even have an Aristotle. If the world is an illusion (or the material world is evil) that needs to be overcome, why study the illusion, the unreal? If only the spiritual is real (or good), then we should strive to mediate on the self (or non-self) as much as possible, as opposed to mediate on the things outside one’s self. If contradictory ideas can be both true, then the scientific method is useless.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I totally agree. This is what separates Gnosticism from Eastern teachings. It is dualistic-we see the world as very real (albeit, something to remain detached from) and not an illusion.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Gnosis which I believe means - esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth - seems rather limited to the few as opposed to the many; is that a fair assessment?

I agree with you that anything, including gnosis, would be far more profound than that of the Eucharist if the Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine, (and that is all it would be if you are right and Jesus is not God) i.e. the holy Trinity is not the true God. Of course, what you and I believe/embrace as truth, cannot be proven so it’s safe to say that you and I, although we have polar opposite beliefs regarding God, see through the eyes of faith only?

Faith does not really play any part in theology. Rather, it is Gnosis which translates as ‘Knowledge’ through which we can arrive at truth.

 

[Lucretius]

Sophia Christ:

What is your opinion on Giordano Bruno thought? (his Ash Wednesday Supper can be found here: math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/renaissance.astro/6.1.Supper.html )

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Numbers are of no consequence to Truth. There are millions of Buddhists and Hindus, but that doesn’t lend any credibility to their beliefs. Heck, there are thousands of people who genuinely believe that the holocaust didn’t happen. I’m pretty sure we’d all agree that they’re all nutters.

My post was in response to the fact that you stated that these were just my personal opinions as if I was pulling them out of thin air. I then responded that there was a school of thought which systematically agreed with what I am advocating. I didn’t say that made these beliefs credible-just that there is some external system of thought which believes the same thing and therefore these beliefs are not the fantastical rantings of some madman in solitude!

 

[gnosisofthomas]

You may have already answered this, but it’s a long thread and I haven’t had a chance to read every post yet… I’m just curious, are you a member of a particular Gnostic Church, or do you practice independently?

I serve as a deacon at a parish in Seattle, so it’s nice to meet another Gnostic.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

i.e. It is wholly and completely subjective, with no basis for validation or refutation. It’s simply whatever sounds good for you, or whatever you “feel” is true. Do you not understand why this is a terrible basis for a belief structure?

I am not as tactful as some of my compatriots, and I acknowledge that. However, that does not have any affect on my arguments, none of which you’ve actually refuted. You’ve just dodged the issue… just like with this post. You didn’t refute anything I said, only restated your definition of Gnosticism and attacked my choice in wording. You can repeat yourself as many times as you want, it doesn’t make your claims any more rational or valid.

I am not trying to be mean, but I’d really like to hear your rebuttal, not just another restatement of what you think. If you don’t rebut my arguments, we can’t advance in the discussion.

As I have explained before, I believe that personal intuition trumps institutional dogma because it does not rely on any external structure for validation. If you take the mass away from Catholics, they cannot advance spiritually. If you take the Bible away from protestants, they hit a dead end. But when there is only oneself necessary for a spiritual experience, external conditions do not matter. As i said before, I could never read the Gospel of St. Thomas again and my spiritual life would still flourish. And since Gnosticism is not institutional in the traditional sense, if one is disingenuous in their spiritual practice they are only fooling themselves.

I have stated these points a few times to the point that I find myself sounding redundant. It is you who are repeating yourself and I await your rebuttal without saying the same thing in different semantic structure.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

My post was in response to the fact that you stated that these were just my personal opinions as if I was pulling them out of thin air. I then responded that there was a school of thought which systematically agreed with what I am advocating. I didn’t say that made these beliefs credible-just that there is some external system of thought which believes the same thing and therefore these beliefs are not the fantastical rantings of some madman in solitude!

You are grossly over-exaggerating what I said. I said that they are irrational beliefs based on what is presented in the Bible. I did not call you a madman, nor did I claim that you are alone in your beliefs. Again, however, I’d like to make it clear that whether you are alone in your beliefs or not is of no consequence to the discussion, as number have no relation to truthfulness.

What I am trying to get across is that there are issues with Gnosticism that you have failed to address. If you are as intellectually honest as you present yourself, these are issues which need to be addressed.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

You may have already answered this, but it’s a long thread and I haven’t had a chance to read every post yet… I’m just curious, are you a member of a particular Gnostic Church, or do you practice independently?

I serve as a deacon at a parish in Seattle, so it’s nice to meet another Gnostic.

Nice to meet you friend! I am not affiliated with any church, but I do align ideologically with the Valentinian interpretation in conjunction with Jungian psychology.

What school of thought does your Church embrace?

 

[Sophia_Christ]

You are grossly over-exaggerating what I said. I said that they are irrational beliefs based on what is presented in the Bible. I did not call you a madman, nor did I claim that you are alone in your beliefs. Again, however, I’d like to make it clear that whether you are alone in your beliefs or not is of no consequence to the discussion, as number have no relation to truthfulness.

What I am trying to get across is that there are issues with Gnosticism that you have failed to address. If you are as intellectually honest as you present yourself, these are issues which need to be addressed.

Please explain what I have failed to address-because I believe I have honestly answered to the best of my ability every question which I had the opportunity to answer.

 

[Lucretius]

I totally agree. This is what separates Gnosticism from Eastern teachings. It is dualistic-we see the world as very real (albeit, something to remain detached from) and not an illusion.

Yes, but Science (which studies the material aspect of the world) won’t develop under a system that sees the material world as “something to remain detached from.”

There are three worldviews I see here:

1. The Indians tend to believe that the world is an illusion. Meditation is to remove oneself from the illusion to focus on Reality.
2. The Gnostics tend to believe that the world is real, but evil. Meditation is removing oneself from the evil material world to contemplate the transcendent Good. The maker of the material world is either imperfect or evil (in traditional Gnosticism this is Jehovah). Jehovah and Christ (who is not incarnated in “evil” matter, and is completely spiritual) are usually considered different beings, as a result.
3. The Christians tend to believe that the world is real, and good (Christ incarnated into it), but due to our fallen nature (and Satan), we can be distracted by the goodness of the world, and forget the Source of that Goodness (that’s God. You knew that, didn’t you?) by doing evil. By removing ourselves from the imperfect goodness in the world (through fasting, prayer, the Sacraments, and most importantly, Grace), we can contemplate the perfect, transcendent Goodness.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[joe371]

Faith does not really play any part in theology. Rather, it is Gnosis which translates as ‘Knowledge’ through which we can arrive at truth.

You don’t need faith because you know with certainty i.e. you know, with certainty, that Gnosis (which translates as ‘Knowledge’) gives way to truth, and not Jesus Christ?

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Yes, but Science (which studies the material aspect of the world) won’t develop under a system that sees the material world as “something to remain detached from.”

There are three worldviews I see here:

1. The Indians tend to believe that the world is an illusion. Meditation is to remove oneself from the illusion to focus on Reality.
2. The Gnostics tend to believe that the world is real, but evil. Meditation is removing oneself from the evil material world to contemplate the transcendent Good.
3. The Christians tend to believe that the world is real, and good, but due to our fallen nature, we can be distracted by the goodness of the world, and forget the Source of that Goodness (that’s God. You knew that, didn’t you?). By removing ourselves from the imperfect goodness in the world (through fasting, prayer, the Sacraments, and most importantly, Grace), we can contemplate the perfect, transcendent Goodness.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Fair enough. I believe science should not be a chief concern amongst the spiritually minded so whether or not the physical sciences flourish is not a worry of mine (with the exception of agricultural/food science). Now, psychology on the other hand, should be given primacy amongst these areas of study.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Nice to meet you friend! I am not affiliated with any church, but I do align ideologically with the Valentinian interpretation in conjunction with Jungian psychology.

What school of thought does your Church embrace?

I’m with the Ecclesia Gnostica, so we’re more Valentinian and very Jung-friendly.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As I have explained before, I believe that personal intuition trumps institutional dogma because it does not rely on any external structure for validation.

As stated, this is akin to only accepting whatever feels right to you, which is not a valid basis for a belief structure. It is relativism at its worst, and cannot generally lead to any sort of real knowledge.

If you take the mass away from Catholics, they cannot advance spiritually.

Wholly and completely false. Mass is the summit of our worship, true, but it is not the only manner in which we advance. The existence of these forumns, and the innumerable Catholic books written on theology, history and philsophy are more than enough evidence for this.

If you take the Bible away from protestants, they hit a dead end.

Also false, for the same reasons listed above.

But when there is only oneself necessary for a spiritual experience, external conditions do not matter.

Read: it’s entirely subjective, and contains no method for validation beyond if it feels right to you. Again, I cannot stress this enough, this is a TERRIBLE basis for belief, as it is rooted entirely in the mood of the person defining the belief system.

As i said before, I could never read the Gospel of St. Thomas again and my spiritual life would still flourish.

You do realize that the Gospel of Thomas is a second century forgery, right? Like, even the people of the time it was written knew enough to discount it as a forgery…

And since Gnosticism is not institutional in the traditional sense, if one is disingenuous in their spiritual practice they are only fooling themselves.

Because there is no method for determining the validity of a series of beliefs beyond personal feelings, then they could also, literally, be fooling themselves, regardless of how genuine their belief in their feelings are.

I have stated these points a few times to the point that I find myself sounding redundant. It is you who are repeating yourself and I await your rebuttal without saying the same thing in different semantic structure.

I have refuted them every time you’ve stated them, just as I have once again done in this post. You have yet to address my points beyond repeating yourself, and as such we’ve been stuck in a loop.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

You don’t need faith because you know with certainty i.e. you know, with certainty, that Gnosis (which translates as ‘Knowledge’) gives way to truth, and not Jesus Christ?

I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that, but in a certain sense you are right. Here is the difference:

In Christianity, sin is evil deeds which are abolished through the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.

In Gnosticism, sin in ignorance of our true nature, which is dispelled through knowledge of our actual nature.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. John of the Cross had some problems with St. Thomas because he thought Aquinas went too far with reason, trying to use reason to describe God Who can only be understood through Grace.

What I’m saying is that if a Dominican monk has an experience where he thinks that the universe is equally eternal with God, the Church (a objective standard) can verify his experience as false. St. Paul teaches that Satan can appear as an Angel of Light. The Church is simply the measure of whether or not a private experience is from God or the Adversary. Hinduism, on the other hand, does not have such a concept. Gnosticism is sort of in the middle, I think.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I would have to read the context in regards to the first paragraph. I dont discount other religions or their methods or beliefs. God works through all faiths and all who earnestly seek Him. There is one God, and no matter what name you give Him, or what you think about Him, He is the same, divine revelation proceeds from Him. Reason gives way to mystical revelation. It picks up where reason simply is silent. I believe we are a fallen race due to original sin. It is baptism that marks us as God’s people and gives us the grace, the strength, the ability to attain salvation and fight the devil. I believe in Gods love too, but without the sacraments you have no defense with manifested evil.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

I’m with the Ecclesia Gnostica, so we’re more Valentinian and very Jung-friendly.

Wonderful!!! Stephan A. Hoeller’s talks have been extremely pivotal to my spiritual development

You wouldn’t happen to be Bishop Stephan would you? Haha

 

[gnosisofthomas]

You don’t need faith because you know with certainty i.e. you know, with certainty, that Gnosis (which translates as ‘Knowledge’) gives way to truth, and not Jesus Christ?

I know this isn’t my thread, but I thought this was an interesting question. Faith is extremely important for Gnostics, but it shouldn’t be interpreted as merely “belief”. The Gospel of Philip describes faith as the earth, in which we take root. It’s unaltered trust in God – which, in conjunction with hope and love, leads to Gnosis.

The Gnosis of Truth comes from Christ Himself, so it would be incorrect to say, “Gnosis, not Jesus Christ.” Christ came to teach us the way of knowledge so that we can be saved. Gnostics, however, don’t believe in subsitutionary atonement, so we don’t recognize the crucifixion as a sacrifice, rather His descent into human form is the true sacrifice.